Editing Greenpeace (section)

==Genetically modified organisms (GMOs)==
[[File:Kurt Wenner Greenpeace.jpg|thumb|European Union members in Brussels presented with a petition of 1 million signatures against GMO, 2010]]
Greenpeace has also supported the rejection of [[Genetically modified food|GM food]] from the US in famine-stricken Zambia as long as supplies of non-genetically engineered grain exist, stating that the US "should follow in the European Union's footsteps and allow aid recipients to choose their food aid, buying it locally if they wish. This practice can stimulate developing economies and creates more robust food security", adding that, "if Africans truly have no other alternative, the controversial GE maize should be milled so it can't be planted. It was this condition that allowed Zambia's neighbours Zimbabwe and Malawi to accept it."<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/news/features/eat-this-or-die/ |title=Eat this or die, The poison politics of food aid |publisher=Greenpeace |date=30 September 2002 |access-date=21 February 2011 |archive-date=22 May 2010 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100522155602/http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/news/features/eat-this-or-die/ |url-status=live }}</ref>

After Zambia banned all GM food aid, the former agricultural minister of Zambia criticized, "how the various international NGOs that have spoken approvingly of the government's action will square the body count with their various consciences."<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.theguardian.com/science/2002/oct/30/gm.food|title=Zambia slams door shut on GM relief food|first=Carrol|last=Rory|date=30 October 2002|access-date=18 October 2010|work=[[The Guardian]]|location=London|archive-date=22 July 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160722140338/https://www.theguardian.com/science/2002/oct/30/gm.food|url-status=live}}</ref> Concerning the decision of Zambia, Greenpeace has stated that, "it was obvious to us that if no non-GM aid was being offered then they should absolutely accept GM food aid. But the Zambian government decided to refuse the GM food. We offered our opinion to the Zambian government and, as many governments do, they disregarded our advice."<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/about/greenpeace-gm-food-aid-and-zambia |title=Greenpeace, GM food aid and Zambia |publisher=Greenpeace |access-date=21 February 2011 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20101216191555/http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/about/greenpeace-gm-food-aid-and-zambia |archive-date=16 December 2010}}</ref>

In 2007 Greenpeace funded research by [[Gilles-Éric Séralini]] into [[MON 863]] genetically engineered maize which concluded it caused health issues to the rats used in the study. European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and French Commission du Génie Biomoléculaire (AFBV) evaluation indicated serious methodological errors in the publication.<ref>{{Cite web|date=30 December 2010|title=New and expiring approvals for GM plants in Europe|url=http://www.gmo-compass.org/eng/news/messages/200703.docu.html|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20101230200044/http://www.gmo-compass.org/eng/news/messages/200703.docu.html|archive-date=30 December 2010|access-date=17 April 2021}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|title=Les Organismes Génétiquement Modifiés, Annexe B. Avis de la commission du génie biomoléculaire sur l'étude statistique du CRIIGEN du maïs MON863|url=http://www.strategie.gouv.fr/system/files/d1b51c34d01.pdf|url-status=dead|access-date=17 April 2021|archive-date=13 July 2011|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110713131209/http://www.strategie.gouv.fr/system/files/d1b51c34d01.pdf}}</ref> Further research by Séralini on GMO resulted in widespread criticism of [[scientific fraud]] and retractions of his publications.

{{Main|Séralini affair}}Also in 2007 Greenpeace similarly publicized results of [[Árpád Pusztai]] which were retracted too.<ref>{{Cite web|date=21 September 2011|title=Suppressed report shows cancer link to GM potatoes|url=https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/suppressed-report-shows-cancer-link-to-gm-potatoes-436673.html|access-date=17 April 2021|website=The Independent|language=en|archive-date=17 April 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210417204832/https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/suppressed-report-shows-cancer-link-to-gm-potatoes-436673.html|url-status=live}}</ref>
{{Main|Pusztai affair}}

===Greenpeace on golden rice===
Greenpeace opposes the planned use of [[golden rice]], a variety of ''[[Oryza sativa]]'' [[rice]] produced through [[genetic engineering]] to [[biosynthesis|biosynthesize]] [[beta-carotene]], a precursor of pro-[[retinol|vitamin A]] in the edible parts of rice. The addition of beta-carotene to the rice is seen as preventive to loss of sight in poverty stricken countries where golden rice is intended for distribution. According to Greenpeace, golden rice has not managed to do anything about malnutrition for 10 years during which alternative methods are already tackling malnutrition. The alternative proposed by Greenpeace is to discourage [[monocropping]] and to increase production of crops which are naturally nutrient-rich (containing other nutrients not found in golden rice in addition to beta-[[carotene]]). Greenpeace argues that resources should be spent on programs that are already working and helping to relieve malnutrition.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/campaigns/agriculture/problem/genetic-engineering/hands-off-our-rice/Greenpeace-and-Golden-Rice/ |title=and golden rice |publisher=Greenpeace |date=5 November 2010 |access-date=21 February 2011 |archive-date=12 January 2011 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110112161230/http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/campaigns/agriculture/problem/genetic-engineering/hands-off-our-rice/Greenpeace-and-Golden-Rice/ |url-status=live }}</ref>

The renewal of these concerns coincided with the publication of a paper in the journal ''[[Nature (journal)|Nature]]'' about a version of golden rice with much higher levels of beta carotene.<ref>Paine JA, Shipton CA, Chaggar S, Howells RM, Kennedy MJ, Vernon G, Wright SY, Hinchliffe E, Adams JL, Silverstone AL, Drake R (2005) A new version of Golden Rice with increased pro-vitamin A content. Nature Biotechnology 23:482–487.</ref> This "golden rice 2" was developed and patented by [[Syngenta]], which provoked Greenpeace to renew its allegation that the project is driven by [[profit motive]]s and to serve as propaganda aimed at increasing public opinion of GMO products.<ref name=NS>[https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn24021-militant-filipino-farmers-destroy-golden-rice-gm-crop.html Militant Filipino farmers destroy Golden Rice GM crop] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150707062703/http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn24021-militant-filipino-farmers-destroy-golden-rice-gm-crop.html |date=7 July 2015 }}, [[New Scientist]], 9 August 2013.</ref><ref>Greenpeace. [http://www.greenpeace.org/international/press/releases/syngenta-agm Patents on Rice: the Genetic Engineering Hypocrisy] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081203235907/http://www.greenpeace.org/international/press/releases/syngenta-agm |date=3 December 2008 }}. 26 April 2005.</ref>

Although Greenpeace stated that the golden rice program's true efficiency in treating malnourished populations was its primary concern as early as 2001,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.checkbiotech.org/blocks/dsp_document.cfm?doc_id=891 |title=Prof. Dr. Ingo Potrykus Addresses Claims of Anti-Biotechnology Activists |access-date=23 January 2005 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20050123041053/http://www.checkbiotech.org/blocks/dsp_document.cfm?doc_id=891 |archive-date=23 January 2005}}. 15 February 2001.</ref> statements from March and April 2005 also continued to express concern over human health and environmental safety.<ref>Greenpeace. [http://www.greenpeace.org/international/news/failures-of-golden-rice Golden Rice: All glitter, no gold] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20091010214558/http://www.greenpeace.org/international/news/failures-of-golden-rice |date=10 October 2009 }}. 16 March 2005.</ref><ref>Greenpeace. [http://www.greenpeace.org/international/press/releases/golden-rice-is-a-technical-fai Golden Rice is a technical failure standing in way of real solutions for vitamin A deficiency] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20050428151734/http://www.greenpeace.org/international/press/releases/golden-rice-is-a-technical-fai |date=28 April 2005 }}</ref> In particular, Greenpeace has expressed concern over the lack of safety testing being done on GMO crops such as golden rice and of "playing with the lives of people...using Golden Rice to promote more GMOs".<ref name=NS/>

In June 2016, a conglomeration of 107 Nobel Laureates signed an open letter<ref name=openletter/> urging Greenpeace to end its campaign against genetically modified crops and Golden Rice in particular.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2016/06/29/more-than-100-nobel-laureates-take-on-greenpeace-over-gmo-stance/|title=107 Nobel laureates sign letter blasting Greenpeace over GMOs|newspaper=[[The Washington Post]]|access-date=30 June 2016|archive-date=29 June 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160629203642/https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2016/06/29/more-than-100-nobel-laureates-take-on-greenpeace-over-gmo-stance/|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.sciencealert.com/107-nobel-laureates-just-signed-a-letter-slamming-greenpeace-about-gmos|title=107 Nobel Laureates just signed a letter slamming Greenpeace over GMOs|first=Fiona|last=MacDonald|date=30 June 2016 |access-date=30 June 2016|archive-date=1 July 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160701143021/http://www.sciencealert.com/107-nobel-laureates-just-signed-a-letter-slamming-greenpeace-about-gmos|url-status=live}}</ref> In the letter, they also called upon governments of the world to "do everything in their power to oppose Greenpeace's actions and accelerate the access of farmers to all the tools of modern biology, especially seeds improved through biotechnology." The letter states that "Opposition based on emotion and dogma contradicted by data must be stopped."<ref name=openletter/> Greenpeace responded stating that "Accusations that anyone is blocking genetically engineered 'Golden' rice are false" and that they support "...investing in climate-resilient ecological agriculture and empowering farmers to access a balanced and nutritious diet, rather than pouring money down the drain for GE 'Golden' rice."<ref name=reactive_statement>{{cite web|url=http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/press/releases/2016/Nobel-laureates-sign-letter-on-Greenpeace-Golden-rice-position---reactive-statement/|title=Nobel laureates sign letter on Greenpeace 'Golden' rice position - statement|access-date=1 July 2016|archive-date=5 July 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160705150259/http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/press/releases/2016/Nobel-laureates-sign-letter-on-Greenpeace-Golden-rice-position---reactive-statement/|url-status=live}}</ref>